Why believe the bible?

by digderidoo 47 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  bohm

  ps. Yes. There are three parts:

  • we should agree one some hypothesis that we want to check (eg. "the bible is inspired by God, the Quraan is not")
  • we should agree on some general framework in which we want to examine this (what is the default position, what kind of arguments do we allow, etc. Since i think your a reasonable guy im quite confident we agree from the beginning).
  • we should look how the bible and the queraan do in terms of those standards.

  The points i brought up does not invalidate the bible as being inspired.. but it do demonstrate all the bible was not inspired, at least. For example, the writer(s) of genesis seem to believe the flood of noah happened, which it did not. if there was no such "problems" the bible would gain crediability in my mind. As for the other points, it would be fairly easy to make the bible truly prophetic: "in 1000 years i will write my name on the moon", or contain scientific insights: "E=mc^2". that the bible does not contain such things does not mean it is inspired, but it do make it harder to argue the bible is.

  but again, the burden of evidence is not on me, it is on those who want to claim the bible is inspired. im all ears in terms of an persuasive argument, i just havent heard one that would not work on the queraan...
• 

  Lore

  The entire bible is inspired by god, but sometimes god lied.

  Disprove THAT
• 

  Terry

  It is good to keep 3 things in mind when thinking about or discussing the bible.

  1.The Western world (that most of us were born into) has been steeped in profound bible belief for the last 2000 years.

  2.Almost no cradle to adulthood education about OTHER ideas are systematically inculcated into young people.

  3.Few of us escape the religious ideas of our family as a foundational influence on our values and emotions.

  That is what we bring to the table.

  We are "tainted" by presuppositions even in an effort to be neutral.

  Last, but by no means least: MOSTLY when we say we "read" or "study" the bible we are really reading and studying somebody's INTERPETATIONS and BIAS about it.

  Now...back to our regularly scheduled program.........
• 

  PSacramento

  The points i brought up does not invalidate the bible as being inspired.. but it do demonstrate all the bible was not inspired, at least. For example, the writer(s) of genesis seem to believe the flood of noah happened, which it did not. if there was no such "problems" the bible would gain crediability in my mind. As for the other points, it would be fairly easy to make the bible truly prophetic: "in 1000 years i will write my name on the moon", or contain scientific insights: "E=mc^2". that the bible does not contain such things does not mean it is inspired, but it do make it harder to argue the bible is.

  The flood issue is only complicated if the WHOLE thing is take as literal, which one certainly CAN do, but that there is no reason to do and can just as correctly be taken as "ancient man describing a catastrofic event in his part of thr world".

  The uses of whole world and all the land and all the people are common in ALL ancient writings, are we to take the incorrect view that "Rome ruled the world" as meaning that Rome never ruled anything?

  but again, the burden of evidence is not on me, it is on those who want to claim the bible is inspired. im all ears in terms of an persuasive argument, i just havent heard one that would not work on the queraan...

  Well, proving that one book is inspired and the other is not is kind of tricky unless we can settle on a definition of "inspired" and on what it means to be and not to be inspired, right?

  I don't think I am the right person to engage in this because my understanding and experience with the Quaran is VERY limited.
• 

  bohm

  PS. then lets leave the queraan for the moment. im not claiming the bible is inspired, or god exist, or anything -- you can define the terms any way you like, as long as i understand them and they are not self-contradictory or otherwise ill-defined. I believe your position is like this:

  • there is a God.
  • The bible explain a number of things (lets leave the big bang out for a moment since its also in the queraan and a number of other religions) which are miraculous in nature.
  • you claim some of those things did not really happend, ie. they are not miraculous but have a natural explanation. For example, creation of life may have happened through a natural process (evolution) rather than 6 creative days (periodes) where the order of the animals are wrong. we agree on this point.
  • There remains a set of events which are supernatural in nature, and which you do claim are more likely to have occured than not. One of those are jesus flight to heaven, i believe (if not, we agree here to! juhu!).
  • Its fully up to you to define that set, and the smaller it is the more we agree per default :-).

  so i suppose we should really have spend some time to define that set because right now im not sure which miracles you believe have occured (or rather, are more likely than not to have occured, if you prefer that language) and that make it hard for me to fully appreciate your position.

  Secondly, i believe there must be some argument attached to why a given biblical "event" is in that set --- ie. how you have arrived at the miracles which are more likely than not to have occured; as we agreed, per default the set is empty: all miracles should be treated with initial sceptisism.

  UPDATED.
• 

  VoidEater

  Terry hits the nail on the head. Our culture is riddled with Bible belief.

  Objectively, why pick the Bible as opposed to older or newer "holy books"?

  The Bible happened to be the text in vogue when those in power decided to build up their church.

  Objectively, there's nothing (beyond some Jungian archtypes) to promote it against others. It's almost accidental that the Bible is viewed with such reverence. Change the time of the founding of Western civilization and we'd have some other text to try and dominate us.
• 

  PSacramento

  PS. then lets leave the queraan for the moment. im not claiming the bible is inspired, or god exist, or anything -- you can define the terms any way you like, as long as i understand them and they are not self-contradictory or otherwise ill-defined. I believe your position is like this:

  there is a God.

  • Yes.

  The bible explain a number of things (lets leave the big bang out for a moment since its also in the queraan and a number of other religions) which are miraculous in nature.

  • From our POV, yes.

  you claim some of those things did not really happend, ie. they are not miraculous but have a natural explanation. For example, creation of life may have happened through a natural process (evolution) rather than 6 creative days (periodes) where the order of the animals are wrong. we agree on this point.

  • Ok, but the creation of the univers in of itself does qualify as a miracle if by miracle we mean an act outside of the natural world.

  There remains a set of events which are supernatural in nature, and which you do claim are more likely to have occured than not. One of those are jesus flight to heaven, i believe (if not, we agree here to! juhu!).

  • I don't thin Jesus "supermaned" into heaven, but that his spirit acended "into the heavens" was was witnessed by his followers.

  Its fully up to you to define that set, and the smaller it is the more we agree per default :-).

  so i suppose we should really have spend some time to define that set because right now im not sure which miracles you believe have occured (or rather, are more likely than not to have occured, if you prefer that language) and that make it hard for me to fully appreciate your position.

  Miracles I believed to have occured? well, the greatest being the creation of the universe, besides that one:

  IF by miracle you mean an act that we view as supernatural ( impossible to explain by science perhaps?), then the ressurection, feeding the masses, healing the blind, rasing the dead.

  Secondly, i believe there must be some argument attached to why a given biblical "event" is in that set --- ie. how you have arrived at the miracles which are more likely than not to have occured; as we agreed, per default the set is empty: all miracles should be treated with initial sceptisism.

  In an historical context, there is evidence to believe in the "miracles" of Jesus not only based on the eye witnesses accounts, but on the account of the charges against Jesus ( sorcery).

  An example: the ressuerection.

  Evidence points to it happening ( there are a few books on it that anyone can read up on it), evidence points to IF the story could have been dispelled, it would have, evidence points that there was no reason to lie or fake the ressurection and evidence points to that if it never happened then Christianity as we know it would have never existed.
• 

  cyberjesus

  Bohm, Go back to Sunday school dude. There you will "really" learn what the bible is all about. Dont ask me which Sunday School. I dont care, as long as it on Sunday.

  Oh Do not even talk about Jesus. Because my name is Jesus and I take personal offense.
• 

  The Finger

  I dont think I would have heard about Jesus without it
• 

  bohm

  A small side point:

  Ok, but the creation of the univers in of itself does qualify as a miracle if by miracle we mean an act outside of the natural world.

  ...im not going to argue the definition of miracle, but i will just note there may be a natural cause for the big bang in an as of yet undiscovered set of natural laws. so it may have been a true "miracle", requiering a god, or just an everyday natural event: we just dont know.

  at any rate: If one accept the big bang and the measurements that lead the conclusion the big bang occured, one must also consider the same type of evidence point to the big rip, ie the complete destruction of the universe and everything we know in it - which is somewhat harder to explain from a christian theological POW, i believe. anyway, i digress, its not evidence that favor the bible over the queraan or thorah at any rate.

  An example: the ressuerection.

  Evidence points to it happening ( there are a few books on it that anyone can read up on it), evidence points to IF the story could have been dispelled, it would have, evidence points that there was no reason to lie or fake the ressurection and evidence points to that if it never happened then Christianity as we know it would have never existed.

  if you by evidence mean eye-witness accounts only recorded in the bible which was written down long after the fact by people who were allready "christians" (or proto-christians), is that evidence then really stronger than that of the miracles the prophet muhammed has said to have carried out?

  if you do not want to consider the question because it has to do with the queraan, then consider this: would such evidence (eye witness/second hand testimony by believers written down long after the fact) consider as sufficient evidence in general?

  ps.

  note i am playing with a handicap; i have been out playing billiard this night and had a few beers :-).